New state law douses field-burning outcry

BOISE – Idaho received only nine public comments on whether it should allow field burning this summer – down from roughly 200 last year.

“I think there’s better understanding of what it is we’re looking for in terms of responses,” said state Agriculture Department spokesman Wayne Hoffman. “We typically receive responses on health issues and the health impacts. I think people now understand that the thing we have to look at by statute is economically viable alternatives.”

Under Idaho law, the state agriculture director must certify that no economically viable alternative is available in order to allow farmers to burn their fields. The summer burning is controversial because of the dense smoke it generates, and opponents have challenged the practice both in court and in the state Legislature on public-health grounds.

However, both the Legislature and the courts – in multiple cases – have sided with the farmers. When grass seed fields are burned after harvest, farmers get another crop without replanting. This year, state lawmakers passed a new law defining “economically viable alternative” as something that achieves the same agricultural results for farmers without costing them a cent more either in the short or long term.

“What it means essentially is that there’s simply no comment you can make which would in any way impact the outcome that’s already been decided by the ISDA, that they’re going to allow burning no matter what,” said Patti Gora, executive director of Safe Air For Everyone. The Sandpoint-based organization, started by area physicians, opposes field burning because of the health impacts of the smoke, particularly on patients with respiratory diseases.

Hoffman said state Agriculture Director Pat Takasugi likely will make his determination around the beginning of July “in anticipation of a burn season that begins sometime around July 14.”

Hoffman said complaints about field burning have dropped 82 percent from 2000 to 2004. “We made some pretty big changes in the way we forecast and coordinate burns,” he said. “Our weather-forecasting abilities are a lot better. … We’re managing to minimize the impacts a lot better than we used to.” Gora disagreed and said, “The reason the complaints were down last year was because it was pouring down rain and they weren’t able to burn the amount of acreage they’d originally planned to burn.”

Former state Rep. Wayne Meyer, R-Rathdrum, a bluegrass seed farmer on the Rathdrum Prairie, said he thought the new law probably contributed to the drop in comments. “I think they felt it was just … kind of useless to submit anything,” he said. “My opponents already know there’s a reduction in yield without burning, and with the new law in place defining economically viable, … you know, why bother?”

Meyer submitted a letter of his own saying that when a portion of the Meyer farm was left unburned, its yield dropped 74 percent. “And I sent the evidence from the seed company,” he said.

SAFE submitted a report on the 2004 field-burning season that said North Idaho residents faced threats to their safety and health because of field burning.

“SAFE has not given up,” Gora said. “SAFE is stronger than it ever has been before and more determined in the face of what seem to be setbacks in both the legislative and the court arena. … We sincerely believe that all people have the right to breathe air that doesn’t hurt them, and we’ll continue our fight until we get there.”

Donald Thill, a professor of weed science at the University of Idaho, submitted a letter saying research is continuing, but it has not yet identified “proven economically sustainable residue management systems available for use by Idaho’s Kentucky bluegrass seed producers.”

A Newport, Wash., resident suggested baling straw and selling it before burning fields to reduce smoke, and a Bonners Ferry woman wrote that there’s no viable alternative and the state should “be realistic and stop harassing the farmers.”

Residents of Sagle, Moyie Springs and Spokane wrote about breathing problems tied to field-burning smoke, and a Washington State University science student offered an economic argument against field burning based in part on health costs.

Linda Clovis of the North Idaho Farmers Association submitted a letter saying the farmers have no viable alternatives.

Meyer said development pressure will eventually put and end to field burning – and to farming – on the Rathdrum Prairie. “My brothers and I, we either get a letter or personal contact from somebody wanting to know if we’d sell any of our property for development on a weekly basis,” he said. “It’s just a matter of time before I don’t think you probably have any farming on the Rathdrum Prairie as we know it today.”

He said that with the high prices these days for fuel, fertilizer and the like, “burning is the only reason to farm. … You’re not going to make any money doing anything else.”

Meyer said this year farmers likely will apply to burn about 2,500 acres of grass-seed fields on the Rathdrum Prairie, down from a historic high of nearly 13,000 acres.